Barack Obama’s actual legislative record on health care is a cautionary tale. His current rhetoric about controlling costs notwithstanding, he has consistently favored policies that contribute to health care inflation.
For example, his career as an Illinois state senator was marked by unwavering support for government mandates dictating the coverage health insurers must provide. The WSJ explains why this is bad:
A long list of studies show that mandates like the ones Mr. Obama has championed drive up the cost of insurance for the very people priced out of coverage.
And the cost increases caused by these mandates are significicant:Â
A 2008 study by an insurance-industry supported research organization, the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), estimates that mandates increase the cost of basic health coverage by 20% to 50%, depending on the state.
So, what’s the alternative?
If insurers were allowed to offer “bare-bones” plans – which would be cheaper because they would cover just essential care – many consumers who are priced out of health insurance now would likely buy these plans instead of living without insurance.
But that’s not what Obama is offering the American people as a presidential candidate. According to his web site, he is for “guaranteed eligibility” and “comprehensive benefits.” In other words, more of the same.
“Guaranteed eligibility” and “comprehensive benefits” sound good to many voters, but government mandates providing such things will keep insurance prices high. Does that sound like”change” to you?
Comments 2
Not to mention Obama’s outrageous multimillion dollar cash payoffs, oops I mean Congressional earmarks, to the hospital where his wife gets close to $400,000 as a grossly overpaid executive.
If this were a Republican, or Hillary Clinton, the media would send an army of investigative reporters to check out this stench.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 6:49 pm ¶Funny, I just got a letter from my States Department of Financial and Professional Regulation responding to a complaint (that I submitted on behalf of our patient) about these “mandatesâ€?. We had a certain carrier side step a “mandateâ€? and refused to cover medical charges related to these so called “mandatesâ€?. Here’s the response I got, “Technically, our State does not have jurisdiction over your benefit plan because the contract is sitused (originated, formed and delivered) in the State of Alabama. Alabama has jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the Alabama Department of Insurance is reluctant to handle Illinois complaintsâ€?.
I wonder how much of our patients insurance premiums are based on Illinois “mandates�. While it’s convenient to quote numbers and stats for political posturing, it’s sad really, that these so called “wonks� have no idea how the battle is fought. So, unfortunately for patients like ours that have no recourse besides the local regulatory body these mandates really don’t, well, mandate.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 11:26 am ¶Post a Comment